Partnership between academics and practitioners – Addressing the challenges in forensic science

This research discusses the development of academic-practitioner partnerships in forensic science and examines the opinions and experience of those involved in the field. An anonymous online survey was completed by 56 participants who work in the field of forensic science. The questions related to their work experience, their experience of research and partnership, and their opinions on the benefits and barriers that exist. The results were analysed using a mixed methods approach, with quantitative analysis of the responses to closed questions using two-way chi-square statistical analysis, and qualitative analysis of the free text responses using reflexive thematic analysis. This work identifies the demand for partnership, the perceived benefits and barriers that exist, and establishes how the role of the participant (academic, pracademic or practitioner) impacts their view of partnership. We include the term pracademic to mean an individual who has worked as a practitioner and an academic, not necessarily simultaneously. Quantitative analysis identified that there was very little statistically significant difference in the responses between groups. Pracademics considered that ‘institutional and cultural’ and ‘lack of the respect of the other role’ were more significant barriers than the other groups. Association was also found between those with greater experience of research and the view that partnership ‘improved legitimacy in practice’ and ‘increased legitimacy of research’. There was also statistical significance in those with more than average experience of partnership who identified ‘improved legitimacy in practice’ as a benefit of partnership.Reflexive thematic analysis of free text comments identified a need and demand for partnership with three key themes developed as being necessary for successful partnership. These are the ‘three ‘R’s’ – the need for effective communication and the development of a Relationship; the Relevance of the partnership to the participants role; and the inclusion of personal Reward such as improved practice or better research.     

中国PPP政策工具选择及其选择模式研究——基于中央政策的文本分析

为深入了解我国PPP政策工具选择现状,基于政策工具视角,采用文本内容分析方法,以中央政府层面(2013-2017年)颁布的PPP政策文本为分析对象,从政策工具、政策目标、项目生命周期三个维度构建了PPP政策三维分析框架。研究发现:PPP政策工具选择偏好明显,在基本政策工具维度上偏重环境型政策工具,政策目标维度偏重PPP模式推广和合作环境营造,项目生命周期维度偏重项目采购与执行;PPP政策工具选择模式明显,具体表现为两种模式四条路径。     

Der Gesamtvorschlag zur Wahl der Volksanwälte bei Mandatsgleichstand

Der vorliegende Beitrag befasst sich mit der Frage, welche rechtlichen Möglichkeiten der Ausschussobmann bei gleicher Mandatsstärke in Bezug auf das Nominierungsrecht der Parteien zum Gesamtvorschlag der Volksanwaltschaft hat.     

The government behind insurance governance: Lessons for ransomware

The insurance as governance literature focuses on the ability of private enterprises to collectively regulate, pool, and distribute risks. This paper analyzes how governments support insurance markets to maintain insurability and limit risks to society. We propose a new conceptual framework grouping government interventions into three dimensions: regulation of risky activity, public investment in risk reduction, and co-insurance. We apply this framework to six case studies, describing insurance markets' reliance on public support in more analytically precise terms. We analyze how mature insurance markets overcame insurability challenges akin to those currently presented by extortive cybercrime. Private governance struggled when markets grew too big for informal coordination or when (tail) risks escalated. Government interventions vary widely. Some governments prioritize supporting economic activity while others concentrate on containing risks. Governments also choose between risk reduction and ex post socialization of losses. We apply these insights to the market for ransomware insurance, discussing the merits and potential hazards of current proposals for government intervention.     

Like bringing a knife to a gunfight: Why IRC Section 2036 is not the right weapon to combat abusive family limited partnerships

Family Limited Partnerships (“FLPs”), which were once a great estate planning technique, have now become victim to Section 2036 assertions made by the IRS. Over the years, the IRS has struggled to find a means to combat abusive FLPs until the courts began to embrace Section 2036 as a weapon for them to use. Different courts, however, have maintained different rules and have now subjected both abusive and non-abusive FLPs to inclusion of their assets into their gross estates. This has shed light onto the main issue, that is, that Section 2036 is not the appropriate tool to combat abusive FLPs.